In protection arrangements, a distinction must basically be made between arrangements that are perpendicular or inclined in relation to the threat, homogeneous (massive) and structured (comprised of several layers of protection). Another distinguishing feature is the manner of the protective effect. A distinction is here best made between passive, reactive, active and inert-dynamic configurations. Arrangements are referred to as reactive protection when pyrotechnic components are initiated by the incident threat, and as active armor given the controlled initiation of the latter. Protection arrangements are inert-dynamic when the protection or parts thereof are accelerated solely by the energy of the incident or penetrating threat. Bulging arrangements (bulging plate arrangements, bulging structures) represent one example of this.
Reactive arrangements against both hollow charges and kinetic energy penetrators have been known since the early 1970's, in which pyrotechnically accelerated elements laterally disrupt or deflect the incident or penetrating/piercing threat, thereby diminishing the penetrating power. Predominantly involved here are single or multi-layer, unilateral or bilateral linings of the explosive, most often with metal plates. Such arrangements are used in armored vehicles.
In reactive protection arrangements, the pyrotechnic component poses the main problem, in terms of both handling and the various loads placed on the structure to be protected or the battlefield following detonation (collateral damages). The quality of this type of protection is determined first and foremost by the amount of explosive used in the entire target, by the percentage of area detonated upon impact of the threat, and by structural measures.
In light of their very high penetrating power, antitank weapons equipped with a hollow charge warhead pose a main threat in particular to light to moderately heavy armored vehicles. PG 7 and lance warheads are here suitable as a reference for this weapons system. For example, protection against HL threats posed to moderately heavy armored vehicles with a baseline protection of approx. 30-50 mm armor steel equivalent with passive protection systems requires an additional area weight measuring on the order of 500 kg/m2. Previously known reactive protection systems still require an additional area weight measuring on the order of 250 to 300 kg/m2. Even using significant, reactively accelerated area masses cannot fully defend against the HL threats, since only a limited percentage of the hollow charge jet can be influenced by the disruptive actions. For this reason, about 20 to 30% of the hollow charge munition's power must still be compensated as residual power by the basic armor of the vehicle at the current level of protection technology. With respect to the mentioned HL threat, this still corresponds to a required basic protection measuring on the order of 60 to 80 mm armor steel equivalent.
In reactive systems, the effective components must be accelerated to speeds of several 100 m/s to still reach the hollow charge jets that impact at up to 10 km/h with laterally effective disruptive masses. To this end, the accelerated target plates must basically bridge the crater formed by the jet tip, so as to reach the penetrating jet from the side. The structural design of the arrangement and in particular its angle in relation to the threat are here the determining parameters. In a series of known configurations, multilayer as well as steeply inclined reactive protection structures yield a jet disruption that arises as rapidly as possible and remains effective over a longer period of time (or with a greater jet length). As a rule, however, this results in structures with a lot of explosive and a large installation depth in comparison to the covered area. In addition, the percentage of structurally necessitated areas or area masses increases (dead masses).
Since relatively large areas (on the order of 100 mm×300 mm) are made to detonate in conventional protection arrangements, the latter place a load on both the environment and their bearing structure. Such reactive armors already involve modules area(reactive area elements) with a delimited area size. In lighter combat vehicles, the use of reactive components is highly restricted or impossible due to the load imposed by the reactive system itself.
EP 1 846 723 B1, which relates to the reactive protection device known as“ERICA”, describes and critically discusses other patent documents disclosing reactive components by way of example. Involved here are the documents U.S. Pat. No. 5,824,951 A, DE 37 29 211 C1, U.S. Pat. No. 4,741,244 A, DE 199 56 197 C2, DE 199 56 197 A1, U.S. Pat. No. 5,637,824 A, DE 37 29 211 C, WO 94/20811 A1, DE 33 13 208 C and DE 102 50 132 A1.
The protection arrangement described in EP 1 846 723 B1 itself consists of a carrier of any design that is inclined in the incident or effective range of the threat, to which pyrotechnic layers are applied on both sides. Initiating both layers generates shock waves and reaction gases, accelerating the latter both against and in the direction of the penetrating threat. At hollow charges, this disrupts both the front, powerful jet elements as well as a significant portion of the overall jet length. The pyrotechnic structure is here at least approximately in a state of dynamic equilibrium over the entire duration of effective action, and exerts no relevant or disruptive influence on the environment in terms of final ballistics.